* Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>I agree that a RDDL document by construction violates the implied
>"SHOULD NOT" recommendation here. I'm not sure I think that
>recommendation is correct for RDDL, however, in two ways:
How about sending your feedback to www-html-editor@w3.org? RFC 2854
makes it currently pretty clear that only XHTML 1.0 documents that
adhere to the guidelines set forth in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0
Recommendation may be published using the text/html documents and
e.g. the W3C Markup Validator consequently only recognizes text/html
documents as XHTML documents if those use a XHTML 1.0 formal public
identifier, so documents like http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.html
cannot possibly pass the W3C Markup Validator. So either the HTML
Working Group needs to change the rules or such documents should not
use the text/html media type or not use RDDL as W3C should not
publish HTML/XHTML documents that cannot pass their own Validator.
--
BjÃ¶rn HÃ¶hrmann Â· mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de Â· http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 Â· Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 Â· http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim Â· PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 Â· http://www.websitedev.de/